-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
If, when, then...
- Thread starter Que
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Powder I assume the conversation you were having was around 1) cost of training and 2) perceptions of the public (this co-worker) about training for gun owners/carriers. His comments seem a little harsh but there is always a thread of truth in every comment and opinion. Winning hearts and minds and all of that......
Most states that don't recognize Indiana's LTCH do so because either they don't recognize any other states' licenses, or because Indiana doesn't have a training requirement. But I thought there were at least some states that didn't recognize Indiana's LTCH under the "substantially similar" clause, due to lack of photo on the LTCH. I could be completely wrong about that.
The closest I've seen anyone comment to is Tennessee's requirement that the laws be "facially similar" or some such verbiage, which people confuse to mean that the LTCH/permit/whatever must have a face on it, i.e., a picture.
Tennessee does not require a picture ID for recognition of the RKBA.
Thanks for your reply. I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something "big".
I got my UT license in order to be legal carrying in MN, where my son lives. Now I see MN doesn't have reciprocity with UT any more 
I agree with some of what he said, but certainly not all. Definitely a broad stereotype expressed. The two things I specifically disagree with are shirts with collars and being able to afford a class because you can afford a gun and ammo. I wear t-shirts whenever I can. If you don't like that, you can go pound sand (to your coworker who expressed the opinion, not you). Some people are so stretched thin, that they can afford a gun and ammo, even occasional range time, but anything further would be too much of a burden. I hit the range every weekend and realized that I'm going through ~ $300 a month in ammo. I just looked it up and the average annual salary in IN is $38,812, according to this IndyStar article from 2014: Indiana?s per capita income ranks 38th among states. I make close to double that and can barely afford this hobby. While I agree training is a good thing and that too many people skip it, requiring it is the wrong way to go IMO.
I agree with some of what he said, but certainly not all. Definitely a broad stereotype expressed. The two things I specifically disagree with are shirts with collars and being able to afford a class because you can afford a gun and ammo. I wear t-shirts whenever I can. If you don't like that, you can go pound sand (to your coworker who expressed the opinion, not you). Some people are so stretched thin, that they can afford a gun and ammo, even occasional range time, but anything further would be too much of a burden. I hit the range every weekend and realized that I'm going through ~ $300 a month in ammo. I just looked it up and the average annual salary in IN is $38,812, according to this IndyStar article from 2014: Indiana?s per capita income ranks 38th among states. I make close to double that and can barely afford this hobby. While I agree training is a good thing and that too many people skip it, requiring it is the wrong way to go IMO.
Another question is.... Would current LTCH holders be grandfathered in or would you have to take the class to be able to KEEP your current license? Sounds like a money maker for the state plus a chance to "re-evaluate" current gun owners.
Part of it was about the cost of training when he's looked online (both Indy and L'ville areas). He understands that hanging a shingle out and the building / range are an expensive overhead cost, but it doesn't mean he agrees with the pricing.
He's also referring to the numerous YouTube videos popping up with people in very casual clothing and a generic nylon holsters. He agrees that we all have a "floppy holster" phase, but with the knowledge and resources available to people, he feels it should be a very short time before owners realize that they are using "garbage" and get a "quality holster".
The quotes are also words used by my buddy when discussing this topic... LoL
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
It seems that the wrong discussion is happening. By definition, the ability of the state to set criteria by which it may or may not allow you to do something, or the lack of ability to do so, is what separates a right from a conditional and revocable privilege. At the present, we are already on the wrong side of this line in reality. We have a right which is already being treated as a conditional privilege. Why on earth would we want to allow even more conditions at greater cost in order to appease others states which have far less respect for our rights than does our own?
Are you required to have a license backed up with periodical training in grammar in order to post on INGO?
Do you have to get a license and pass a doctrinal literacy test to go to church?
Do you have to have a license and take civics classes in order to start a petition?
Do you have to get a government exemption to prevent having government personnel stationed in your home against your will?
Do you have to get a government certificate and special training to be exempt from the police searching your home at will without a warrant?
Do you have to have a government certificate and special training to be exempt from incriminating yourself in legal proceedings?
Do you have to get a government certificate and special training to be exempted from double-jeopardy and being tried over and over again for the same crime no matter how many times you are found innocent until that one time they get lucky?
OK, so tell me again why we should be required to have at our own expense of time and money a conditional instrument of state permission in order to exercise a clearly enumerated right?
Last but not least, with such an increase on demand, do you think we are more likely to see a trainer spring up on every street corner or the prices rise significantly as has been the case with post-secondary education with demand artificially driven by federal kibitzing?
Are you required to have a license backed up with periodical training in grammar in order to post on INGO?
Do you have to get a license and pass a doctrinal literacy test to go to church?
Do you have to have a license and take civics classes in order to start a petition?
Do you have to get a government exemption to prevent having government personnel stationed in your home against your will?
Do you have to get a government certificate and special training to be exempt from the police searching your home at will without a warrant?
Do you have to have a government certificate and special training to be exempt from incriminating yourself in legal proceedings?
Do you have to get a government certificate and special training to be exempted from double-jeopardy and being tried over and over again for the same crime no matter how many times you are found innocent until that one time they get lucky?
OK, so tell me again why we should be required to have at our own expense of time and money a conditional instrument of state permission in order to exercise a clearly enumerated right?
Last but not least, with such an increase on demand, do you think we are more likely to see a trainer spring up on every street corner or the prices rise significantly as has been the case with post-secondary education with demand artificially driven by federal kibitzing?
There is already a firearms "trainer" on every street corner. There would be more and prices would drop. There would be several who would rubber stamp the certificates just to pocket a quick buck.
Everything else late in the above post
Now that we agree keep in mind that the Supreme Court has ruled that there can be some limitations on our rights. For instance I can't run through the mall shouting profanity and claim freedom of speech. That said my personal opinion is that as long as it doesn't affect anybody else then I don't feel it should be illegal. Since carrying a properly holstered handgun in no way adversely affects other people then there is no excuse not to allow that activity. If my shirt rides up over the grip and Libby the soccer mom sees it and freaks is not hurting her. Unfortunately with all the silly current events open carrying a long gun into a theater might legitimately cause a panic attack. Doesn't mean it should be illegal but I can understand it catching somebodies attention.
Everything else late in the above post
Now that we agree keep in mind that the Supreme Court has ruled that there can be some limitations on our rights. For instance I can't run through the mall shouting profanity and claim freedom of speech. That said my personal opinion is that as long as it doesn't affect anybody else then I don't feel it should be illegal. Since carrying a properly holstered handgun in no way adversely affects other people then there is no excuse not to allow that activity. If my shirt rides up over the grip and Libby the soccer mom sees it and freaks is not hurting her. Unfortunately with all the silly current events open carrying a long gun into a theater might legitimately cause a panic attack. Doesn't mean it should be illegal but I can understand it catching somebodies attention.
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
There is already a firearms "trainer" on every street corner. There would be more and prices would drop. There would be several who would rubber stamp the certificates just to pocket a quick buck.
Everything else late in the above post
Now that we agree keep in mind that the Supreme Court has ruled that there can be some limitations on our rights. For instance I can't run through the mall shouting profanity and claim freedom of speech. That said my personal opinion is that as long as it doesn't affect anybody else then I don't feel it should be illegal. Since carrying a properly holstered handgun in no way adversely affects other people then there is no excuse not to allow that activity. If my shirt rides up over the grip and Libby the soccer mom sees it and freaks is not hurting her. Unfortunately with all the silly current events open carrying a long gun into a theater might legitimately cause a panic attack. Doesn't mean it should be illegal but I can understand it catching somebodies attention.
Aside from that one point which really is a matter of speculation, we are very much on the same page. I see the economics issue as a threat not an assured outcome. That said, it might not be a bad thing to explore the limiting rights thing. The generally accepted 'limitations on rights' are, in my reckoning, not really limits on the rights themselves, but on harmful actions using those rights as a springboard. For example, the reasonable limitation regarding the 2A is that I don't have the right to randomly or specifically shoot people at my whim, which really does not have anything to do with keeping or bearing arms but rather (mis)using them. If soccer mommy gets sand in her girly parts over my gun, she is just going to have to get a grip on the fact that I have a right to that gun. She does NOT have a right to a false sense of security built on infringing on my rights. Unfortunately, in the prevailing national 'discussion' on the matter, not nearly enough attention has been paid to the difference between limiting a right and limiting a derivative of a right.
(grabber-whine) But Daaaaave.... None of those things can KILL CHILdrennnnnnn..... You neeeeed to be reeeeeeeeasonable here. (/grabber-whine)
And this is exactly the argument you'd get in reply. None of the other rights can directly kill anyone other than the person exercising them.
The simple fact here is that many of those who claim to be our countrymen (and I specifically refer to the gun grabbers here) would use the power of government to assuage their own cowardice, because they are wussified weaklings of whom our Founders would have been ashamed, as was so succinctly put by Mr. Samuel Adams:
Mr. Adams had a way with words, to make the understatement of the millenium, but the point is clear. They would have government be the be-all, end-all solution to all of our problems, and the issue with that has also been defined: Government is not the solution. Government is the problem. What we need is self-governance; specifically, each person should govern himself. This is not a call for anarchy, but rather for personal responsibility. I don't know anyone who owns a gun who thinks that training is a bad thing. I think we all agree that it is wise to undertake. Many things are wise to do that are not required. It is wise to tip your servers well at restaurants where you eat often. It is wise to return kindness to others, even if you don't receive it from them. It is wise to recycle. It is wise to have redundancy in those areas of your life that are vital, such as methods to prepare food. NONE of these things are required by law, at least where I live. Some have even been forbidden. But I'll be da*ned if a law is going to prevent me from doing what is right and wise. If I see a homeless person and the thought occurs to me to do something to feed them, the hell with vagrancy laws, I will stop at the grocery, buy some food, and give it to them. If I think I need a method of preparing food other than my kitchen stove or other methods dependent upon a functional power grid, I will have one (or more) and I don't frankly care if that violates some FEMA plan.
Likewise, I will obtain training when I choose to do so. Admittedly, I've been lax in doing so of late, but I've had just a few things going on that have held my attention, time, and cash elsewhere. I still dry fire and practice with an air rifle... hell, I can do that inside the house... but when you get down to it, the people who are forced to take a training (think "defensive driving" to avoid a traffic ticket) do not benefit from it, they sit through it and try to stay awake. Those who come to a training by choice sit with rapt attention, trying to soak up every nuance of the instruction provided. To me, THAT is proof enough of why required training is a poor idea.
Blessings,
Bill
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Typical Bill post! Deep, thoughtful, and inspiring laughter all at the same time!
Seriously, I am with you regarding training. Juggling working, some farming, an overwhelming number of projects at home, and looking after a grandmother suffering from dementia, the time just isn't there. I have been run down enough that my morning and evening INGO sessions are pretty much my runup to being fully awake in the morning and settling down enough to sleep at night.
I"m against it because it is just wrong to have to qualify for a "right endowed by your creator". I jump through the hoops to bypass this unconstitutional law to be able to protect my family, pick your battles. Anyone with military service can also get a Florida CCW by simply sending them a copy of your DD214 showing you were enlisted to bypass the training requirement. They figure you must have had firearm safety training there, even if it wasn't pistol training. That's the route I would take to get a second CCW that is honored by other states. No required class and it can all be done via mail.
Why is this training necessary?
APNewsBreak: Indiana enlists NRA to train Guard on firearms - 13 WTHR Indianapolis
APNewsBreak: Indiana enlists NRA to train Guard on firearms - 13 WTHR Indianapolis
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I am going to say that it is the governor's prerogative to impose the requirements he wishes on National Guard personnel during the time they are on duty, as opposed to a general requirement for everyone which serves to convert a right into a conditional privilege.
I get that it's his prerogative. I wonder if Pence will issue them a special LTCH to show they have training and qualify for reciprocity between other states? He should open this up for all Indiana residents.
I get that it's his prerogative. I wonder if Pence will issue them a special LTCH to show they have training and qualify for reciprocity between other states? He should open this up for all Indiana residents.
I don't think Pence could do that by himself. It would take a change in both IN law and other States in accepting the reciprocity.
He would have to take the first step.
I'd like to say this training is "necessary" because the military may be able to train in the use of a pistol, but doesn't typically train in concealment of that pistol.
I'd like to say that, but I think the truth is that this training is necessary for the NRA to help back Mr. Pence's re-election campaign, as the article said at the end.
Blessings,
Bill
Yeah, I get it, Bill. However, an Army officer would not need a LTCH if he's on duty. I do not see why they have required training to get a LTCH? Why can't he just make a handgun part of the weaponry that may be issued to an enlisted soldier? If they can only officially carry while on duty (this is an assumption on my part), why do they need a LTCH at all?
As for reelection, Pence probably already has an A-rating from the NRA, so I don't get how this could help him.
